If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Obama proposes more spending.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...KgmF9psBH+HuA&

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinnum1
Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

Second, you are missing the point. In his first term, he would try to come out with a proposal that he thought would be acceptable. He would then be taken to the right from there. That is not how you negotiate.

He took an opening negotiating position. That's all.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

This was his campaign, just as rightists campaign to increase debt by giving tax breaks to the wealthy who fund their campaigns and superPACs. It's just to bad their aren't enough rich voters to impact the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Obama has no reason to negotiate on this. He should put an extension of the bush tax cuts for everyone under $250k and wait for that to pass. Do nothing until it passes, nothing. Then move on to the next item in the fiscal cliff. He holds all the cards, there is nothing stopping this path. Let John boehner have to pass just that pass or explain to America why he won't. This is the hardball Obama should be playing. Reid can deliver it in the senate

Def against the tax increases but I know that we will have them probably not to that extent though.

More against the 50 billion in spending. For one lets not say we have a debt problem then say lets spend more which is what Obama is doing, and 50 billion will have little help on to the economy which is what a "stimulus" is designed to do.

I think he can do better then 400 billion in cuts, especially when proposing 1.6 trillion in taxes. Didn't he a year ago say he'd cut 10 bucks for every 1 dollar in tax increases? This is no where near that. But 400 billion is a decent start.

Def against raising the inheritance tax at all. The money has been taxed it's a double tax to me. I like that some Democrat senators are against that. And man I feel sorry for the poor sap dying on Jan 2nd next year with just over a million in savings and his or her air's are left with 450k That's just horrible to me.

But overall right now it's going to be a lot of rhetoric till we get right to the cliff because that's how politics works sadly.

This was his campaign, just as rightists campaign to increase debt by giving tax breaks to the wealthy who fund their campaigns and superPACs. It's just to bad their aren't enough rich voters to impact the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Obama has no reason to negotiate on this. He should put an extension of the bush tax cuts for everyone under $250k and wait for that to pass. Do nothing until it passes, nothing. Then move on to the next item in the fiscal cliff. He holds all the cards, there is nothing stopping this path. Let John boehner have to pass just that pass or explain to America why he won't. This is the hardball Obama should be playing. Reid can deliver it in the senate

Actually that's not how America works. The president isn't the king he doesn't just get to do whatever he wants. Boehner has every right as the majority leader of the house to get the votes not to pass something.

How is it that when the tax cuts and the wars are going to account for such a percentage of government spending (other thread) is it that we have a "spending problem"? Unless you mean war spending, in which case I agree with you.

Social Security doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!
Medicare doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!

These programs are financed through tax revenue and while they need changes or tweaks, cutting them won't do a damn thing to the debt or deficit.

How is it that when the tax cuts and the wars are going to account for such a percentage of government spending (other thread) is it that we have a "spending problem"? Unless you mean war spending, in which case I agree with you.

Social Security doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!
Medicare doesn't add one dime to the debt...lets cut it!

These programs are financed through tax revenue and while they need changes or tweaks, cutting them won't do a damn thing to the debt or deficit.

We have more then a war problem. Considering we've had what 3 years with a balanced budget and a surplus in the last 60 years it's more then just wars and tax cuts.

And yes if you keep the taxes at what they are and cut into medicare it will reduce the deficit as long as you don't raise spending somewhere else.

Infrastructure and home mortgage refinancing are two things that are really needed to fix our ailing economy. The debt is a problem that can be addressed over the next 20 years. The mortgage crisis continues to be a drag on our economy and will only get worse when the market rebounds and banks start suing defaulting mortgagees.

It is now that I wish our resident economist was still with us, that we could peg the amount of lost tax revenue because of the recession. But if we look at just these two figures, we can see where a substantial part of the debt comes from.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?